American Civil Liberties UnionACLU.orghttps://www.aclu.org/
Where Does #MeToo Start? https://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights/womens-rights-education/where-does-metoo-start
How sex stereotypes in schools perpetuate sexual harassment in the workplace and beyond.
<p>Reckoning with the prevalence of sexual harassment and gender-based violence in the wake of #MeToo has prompted many to reexamine the conditions that have allowed harassment and violence to flourish. One place to start is our public schools, where young people develop critical understandings about gender starting at an early age.</p>
<p>For over a decade, the ACLU has been <a href="https://www.aclu.org/teach-kids-not-stereotypes">raising alarms</a> about teaching methods <a href="https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/doe_ocr_report2_0.pdf">widely in use</a> in public schools across the United States premised on the notion that there are fundamental, <a href="https://www.aclu.org/other/boys-brains-vs-girls-brains-what-sex-segregation-teaches-students">sex-based differences</a> that determine how students learn and develop. Proponents of these methods frequently cast boys as active or dominant, and girls as passive or submissive — stereotypes that normalize the power dynamics that lead to abuse and harassment.</p>
<p>Consider the slide below, from a teacher training widely used by public schools in Volusia County, Florida, which literally divides students into pink and blue:</p>
<p><img alt="Effective Strategies to Motivate Boys and Girls Slides from Volusia County, Florida public school" width="580" class="advo-image-height-filtered-text media-element file-wysiwyg" src="https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/styles/content_area_full_width/public/wysiwyg/web18-volusiacountyfloridaslides.jpg?itok=WKs5xMho"></p>
<p>Or this poster, recently posted on the wall of an all-boys public school in Dallas:</p>
<p><img alt="The Mind of Boys Poster from an all boys public school in Dallas" width="580" class="advo-image-height-filtered-text media-element file-wysiwyg" src="https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/styles/content_area_full_width/public/wysiwyg/web18-posterfromallboypublicschooldallas.jpg?itok=AwA9wSSU"></p>
<p>Michael Gurian, a popular author and chief proponent of this philosophy, has claimed: “Pursuit of power is a universal male trait. Pursuit of a comfortable environment is a universal female trait.” He suggests that boys who like to read or do not enjoy contact sports have a problem, and should be disciplined and made to spend time with “normal males” and play sports. He also recommends that boys be provided nerf bats to hit things in order to release physical aggression. Leonard Sax, another popular author, claims that teachers should discipline boys by asserting power over them or even spanking them, while they should discipline girls by appealing to their empathy. Both Sax and Gurian regularly provide teacher trainings in public schools, paid for at taxpayer expense, including recent mandatory trainings in Dallas, Texas and West Milford Township, New Jersey, to name just a few.</p>
<p>Educators often favor this approach because it matches perceptions of how “most” boys and girls behave, and because they are led to believe that separating boys from girls into different classes will eliminate distraction in the classroom and lead to better student performance outcomes. But scientific evidence tells a different story. Claims about differing male and female brains have been largely debunked: Brains are much <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-beginners-guide-to-sex-differences-in-the-brain-54201">more similar</a> across sex than they are different, and what differences do exist don’t necessitate different teaching methods. What’s more, there is no valid evidence that the use of these teaching techniques is effective.</p>
<p>If we teach that boys are hardwired to be aggressive and dominating, and girls passive and submissive, how can we hold boys and men accountable when they perpetrate harassment and abuse? If we treat girls as too distracting to be educated in the same room as boys, what does that say about the relative value of girls’ and boys’ education, or their potential contributions to society? And if we presume male and female students can’t learn together in the same classrooms, how will they learn to coexist and treat each other with respect, whether in higher education or the workplace?</p>
<p>There is also the question of where this leaves students who don’t conform to gender expectations, including LGBTQ and non-binary students. Using sex as a proxy for students’ learning styles — or even to determine <a href="https://www.aclu.org/teach-kids-not-stereotypes">which classroom a student enters at school</a> — erases their experience. Teaching that there is a “normal” way to be a boy or girl can exacerbate feelings of isolation, and increase instances of <a href="https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/TeasingtoTorment%202015%20FINAL%20PDF%5B1%5D_0.pdf">harassment and bullying</a>, to which LGBTQ and non-binary students are already disproportionately subject.</p>
<p>Ultimately, there is little to be gained from using education practices that highlight gender differences, as opposed to emphasizing commonalities and meeting students where they are as individuals. Studies show that any practice that highlights differences between groups can increase biased beliefs about the other group. For example, <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/10/the_single_sex_school_myth_an_overwhelming_body_of_research_show.html">separating students</a> into a red t-shirt group and a blue t-shirt group leads to the red t-shirts making more generalizations about — and believing that they are superior to — the blue t-shirts, and vice versa. Research also shows that students who spend <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263722254_Gender-segregated_schooling_and_gender_stereotyping?tab=overview">more time in single-sex groups</a> develop more stereotyped views regarding gender roles.</p>
<p>To be sure, schools can and should be taking other measures <a href="https://www.knowyourix.org/">to prevent violence and harassment at school</a>, such as establishing clear complaint procedures and educating students on bystander prevention, and to ensure that teachers and administrators respond appropriately when it does occur. They should also institute comprehensive sexuality education programs that <a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights/womens-rights-education/lets-stop-sexual-harassment-and-violence-they-begin">equip students with the tools to help them maintain healthy relationships</a>.</p>
<p>But #MeToo should also prompt us all, as parents, students, teachers, and community members, to reexamine entrenched assumptions about gender that are baked into the ways schools educate students. Only by eradicating sex stereotypes in education will students be equipped to collaborate, learn, and work as equals and ultimately realize the promise of equality as adults.</p>Speak Freely<a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights/womens-rights-education/where-does-metoo-start">67282</a>Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:45 -0500American Civil Liberties UnionAppeals Court Declares Third Muslim Ban Unconstitutionalhttps://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/appeals-court-declares-third-muslim-ban-unconstitutional
Trump’s ban, says court, “strikes at the basic notion that the government may not act based on religious animosity.”
<p>Once again, an appeals court ruled that President Trump’s Muslim ban — now in its third iteration — violates the Constitution’s most basic guarantee of religious freedom.</p>
<p>Earlier today, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit <a href="https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/international-refugee-assistance-project-v-trump-opinion-0">stated</a> that the ban’s purpose has always been and remains to “exclude Muslims from the United States.” The ruling comes at a crucial time, because the Supreme Court will issue its own decision on the ban this summer.</p>
<p>Today’s decision confirms what has been clear since Trump first took office. Throughout his presidential campaign, he consistently <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and-complete-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-the-united-states/?utm_term=.4ed03a30d1c3">promised</a> to block Muslim immigration and even announced a <a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/dozen-times-trump-equated-travel-ban-muslim-ban">specific plan</a> for achieving that goal: a nationality-based travel ban against people from predominantly Muslim countries. As promised, one week into his presidency, without consulting any federal agencies, he issued an unprecedented <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states/">ban</a> against people from seven overwhelmingly Muslim countries.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/ice-and-border-patrol-abuses/customs-and-border-protection-violated-court">Chaos</a> ensued at airports across the country. Americans showed up in droves to stand up for their families, their neighbors, and their colleagues, driving home the message that religious bigotry has no place in our country. The courts quickly <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkbS9W467h4">blocked</a> the ban.</p>
<p>Since then, Trump has done everything in his power to carry out his goal. After the first ban was blocked, he instructed the government agencies he had ignored the first time around to “compile additional factual support,” as his lawyers <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/IM-MD-0004-0095.pdf">put it</a>, to implement the same basic policy. Sure enough, after three weeks, the president signed a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/travel-ban-muslim-trump.html">second</a> ban, this time targeting six predominantly Muslim countries. Courts blocked that second version, ruling that the president does not gain the ability to suddenly ban millions of Muslims simply by getting his cabinet to sign off on it.</p>
<p>The courts did, however, <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/06/12/17-15589.pdf">allow</a> the administration to implement the president’s order to conduct a study of existing visa vetting procedures, to determine what other restrictions to impose. To oversee that process, Trump installed a Department of Homeland Security official who, like the president himself, had <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/11/a-fake-jihadist-has-landed-a-top-job-at-homeland-security/">explicitly</a> <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/frank-wuco-white-house-adviser-muslims-homeland-security_us_5a664e38e4b0dc592a0ba00e">advocated</a> for a ban on Muslim immigrants and surveillance of mosques in the United States. To no one’s surprise, that process led to a recommendation that the president do what he had already done twice: ban people from predominantly Muslim countries, virtually the same ones named in the first two versions of the ban.</p>
<p>Trump signed the third <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-enhancing-vetting-capabilities-processes-detecting-attempted-entry-united-states-terrorists-public-safety-threats/">ban</a> in September. Unlike the first two versions, which were temporary, this one permanently bans people from six Muslim-majority countries. It also bans people from North Korea, which sends almost no one to the United States, and a handful of government officials from Venezuela.</p>
<p>Thankfully, the courts have again roundly rejected the president’s attempt to keep Muslims out of the country. In December, the Ninth Circuit court of appeals <a href="https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000160-811d-da22-ad65-e7ffa71c0001">ruled</a> that the ban violates U.S. immigration laws, which do not allow the president to remove entire countries from our immigration system. The Supreme Court will hear that case this spring.</p>
<p>Today’s decision is notable because it is the first time an appeals court has ruled that the permanent ban violates the Constitution. The Fourth Circuit rejected the government’s attempt to portray the third ban as completely separate from the first two. As the court explains, “a reasonable observer could hardly swallow the claim that the addition of North Korea and Venezuela to the twice-enjoined travel ban” changed the ban’s basic purpose. The court pointed to “undisputed evidence that the President of the United States has openly and often expressed his desire to ban those of Islamic faith from entering the United States.”</p>
<p>The evidence is indeed overwhelming. Late last year, Trump <a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/trumps-lawyers-say-muslim-ban-has-no-bias-his-tweets-show-otherwise">posted</a> three anti-Muslim videos intended to sow fear of Muslims immigrants and distrust between Christians and Muslims. And even while his agencies were studying their visa procedures, Trump made clear that he <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-latest-tweets-could-hurt-effort-to-restore-travel-ban/2017/06/05/c8eb5940-49e8-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html?utm_term=.09f5f944188d">planned</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc0AqRsOgHI">to</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/15/trump-is-still-angry-about-the-travel-ban-he-undermined-himself/?utm_term=.490b10d7aac5">impose</a> the toughest possible ban, no matter what.</p>
<p>The ban, the court held, “strikes at the basic notion that the government may not act based on religious animosity.” It not only cuts against basic values of equality and freedom, it also does untold damage to thousands of American families, schools, hospitals, and businesses. As the decision says, the ban “inhibits the normal flow of information, ideas, resources, and talent” between other countries and our own. And it “denies the possibility of a complete, intact family to tens of thousands of Americans.” The <a href="https://www.aclu.org/issues/immigrants-rights/living-muslim-ban">human tragedies</a> inflicted by the ban are impossible to overstate.</p>
<p><a class="more" href="http://www.aclu.org/yearoftheban">Read More: Living With The Muslim Ban</a></p>
<p>Despite today's ruling, the ban remains in effect while the Supreme Court considers the <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-hawaii-3/">case</a>. It is expected to hear arguments in April and to decide by June whether the president may indefinitely exclude millions of Muslims from uniting with their families in the United States. Let's hope the third ban’s rejection by the appeals courts is an indication of its ultimate fate.</p>Speak Freely<a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/appeals-court-declares-third-muslim-ban-unconstitutional">67341</a>Thu, 15 Feb 2018 18:15 -0500American Civil Liberties UnionTake It From a Death Row Exoneree: The Dallas County DA Election Is a Big Deal https://www.aclu.org/blog/mass-incarceration/smart-justice/take-it-death-row-exoneree-dallas-county-da-election-big-deal
The most powerful elected official you&#039;ve never heard of.
<p><em>This piece originally appeared at the <a href="https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2018/02/07/take-exoneree-dallas-county-da-election-big-deal">Dallas Morning News.</a></em></p>
<p>On March 6, the voters of Dallas County will begin the process of choosing their next district attorney. This is a critical decision that will have lasting effects on the lives of millions of Texans.</p>
<p>A county election might seem unimportant compared to the daily drama of national politics, but I know better than most the awesome power district attorneys wield. I also know how much damage they can do when they exercise that power corruptly or irresponsibly. Or when they measure their success not by their commitment to truth, justice and community, but by the number of convictions they secure.</p>
<p>Because of one such district attorney, I spent 18-and-a-half years behind bars, with 16 of those years in solitary confinement and 12 on death row, all for a crime that I did not commit.</p>
<p>Because of a district attorney, my death was scheduled twice. Because of a district attorney, I will forever be known not only as Anthony Graves, grandfather, father and son, but as United States Death Row Exoneree 138.</p>
<p>The district attorney who put me through those two decades of torture and despair was ultimately disbarred, but that level of accountability for prosecutorial misconduct is rare. District attorneys are almost never held accountable for their misdeeds, which is why it's so important to choose them wisely at the ballot box.</p>
<p class="pullquote">I spent 18-and-a-half years behind bars, with 16 of those years in solitary confinement and 12 on death row, all for a crime that I did not commit.</p>
<p>District attorneys are the most powerful and influential public servants in the criminal justice system. They have more impact on the communities they serve than President Donald Trump, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions or Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. They influence whether a person is charged with a crime, and whether that person will have to sit in jail awaiting trial. They affect whether a drug addict gets treatment or a prison sentence. They determine whether police officers will be held accountable for instances of excessive or lethal force. They alter the course of state and local criminal justice legislation. And they are among the primary drivers of mass incarceration in America.</p>
<p>In a state like Texas, which has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, choosing the right DA couldn't be more important. And in Dallas County, which locks up a disproportionate number of African Americans, Latinos and women, voters have an opportunity to bring about real and positive change.</p>
<p>Dallas County deserves a district attorney who treats incarceration as a last resort rather than a default response. Far too many people are held in jail while they await trial simply because they cannot afford bail, or for minor drug possession, or because they've fallen behind on traffic fines and fees. And those who are in jail naturally lose the ability to support themselves or their families, sticking taxpayers with the bill for their food, housing and health care.</p>
<p>The remedies are well known, and they work. Pre-trial diversion programs, pre-trial incarceration reforms, drug treatment programs, mental health screenings and treatment, and the elimination of racial biases in policing and prosecution would all do a great deal to reduce mass incarceration in Dallas County.</p>
<p>But none of this is possible without a district attorney for whom truth is more important than a conviction rate.</p>Speak Freely<a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/mass-incarceration/smart-justice/take-it-death-row-exoneree-dallas-county-da-election-big-deal">67317</a>Thu, 15 Feb 2018 17:00 -0500American Civil Liberties UnionWe’re Challenging Ohio Lawmakers’ Thinly Veiled Attempt to Push Abortion Out of Reach https://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom/abortion/were-challenging-ohio-lawmakers-thinly-veiled-attempt-push
The Ohio law pretends to protect people with disabilities, but it’s really an attack on a woman’s reproductive rights.
<p>Ohio politicians have launched yet another attack on women’s health and reproductive rights, and to make matters worse, they are mounting their attack in the guise of a concern for individuals with disabilities.</p>
<p>Today, the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of Preterm Cleveland and a number of other abortion care providers to challenge an unconstitutional abortion ban. The law, signed by Gov. John Kasich, would prevent a woman from ending a pregnancy because of a Down syndrome diagnosis. It does so by criminalizing any doctor who knowingly performs an abortion sought on that basis. The law, unless it is stopped by a court, would go into effect next month.</p>
<p>Although it’s packaged differently from the other <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/abortion-ohio-bbc2fe79ab91/">18 restrictions</a> that Gov. Kasich signed before it, this ban is just another thinly veiled attempt to push abortion out of reach and interfere in a woman’s personal decision. It’s also unconstitutional — a federal court <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/genetic-abnormality-abortions-judge-permanently-blocks-indiana-law/">struck down a similar law in Indiana</a> back in 2016.</p>
<p>Let’s make one thing clear: This law does nothing to honor or support families who decide to bring a special needs child into the world. It does not improve access to health care, education, or other services, nor does it do anything to address discrimination against people with disabilities. What this law does is to deny women’s constitutional right to make their own reproductive decisions, and it also interferes with women’s relationships with their doctors, by making it harder to have honest and informed conversations.</p>
<p>We can’t know all the factors behind a woman’s decision to continue or end a pregnancy. We can, however, ensure that a woman has the relevant information and resources she needs to make the decision that’s best for the circumstances of her pregnancy and for her family. Politicians should do everything in their power to make sure Ohio women have access to accurate medical information, resources, and the support necessary to raise their children with dignity. Instead, they’re passing laws that restrict a woman’s ability to have these critical conversations, while forcing doctors to interrogate their patients.</p>
<p>Emily Chesnut — the mother of seven-year-old Nora, who has Down syndrome — spoke at the press conference announcing the lawsuit. She said it best:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>No parent should have to embark on this journey uninformed. They should be able to have a frank, honest conversation with their doctor about what it will mean to have a child with Down syndrome. They should have all the information and be encouraged to ask more questions, so they can make this very personal decision freely, without the presence of politicians in the exam room. This bill does nothing to help with that.</p>
<p>I understand that talking about Down syndrome tugs at heartstrings. I understand the fierce pride and protectiveness that parents of children with Down syndrome feel. I feel it too.</p>
<p>This bill is not about Down syndrome. It is not about protecting our children or making their lives better.</p>
<p>This bill is about putting another hurdle in front of women who have a constitutional right to make their own decisions about their bodies and their futures. As a mother, I will not stand for that.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If Ohio politicians do, in fact, want to support people with disabilities, there are many steps they could take. The government’s role should be to help level the playing field for people with disabilities, who face particular obstacles in getting health care, housing, education and other services. How about we start with improving those services?</p>Speak Freely<a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom/abortion/were-challenging-ohio-lawmakers-thinly-veiled-attempt-push">67334</a>Thu, 15 Feb 2018 14:45 -0500American Civil Liberties UnionICE Keeps Challenging Federal Courts’ Authority — And Losing. https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/ice-and-border-patrol-abuses/ice-keeps-challenging-federal-courts-authority
In national assault on immigrants’ rights, ICE believes no population is off the table. U.S. law and courts say otherwise.
<p class="Body">In a recent span of 10 days, four courts issued decisions that could literally save lives.</p>
<p class="Body">Our clients live across the United States, but all have been swept up in ICE’s aggressive new campaign to target communities previously considered low-priority for immigration enforcement, with ICE attempting to deport them as quickly as possible. Since July 2017, we have challenged this bully tactic in federal district courts across the country, filing cases on behalf of communities of <a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/deportation-and-due-process/trump-administration-cant-deport-1400-iraqi">Iraqis</a> in Michigan, <a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/ice-and-border-patrol-abuses/ice-trying-deport-families-who-fear-religious">Indonesians</a> in New Hampshire, <a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/ice-and-border-patrol-abuses/ice-abused-somalis-2-days-plane-and-now-wants">Somalis</a> in Florida, <a href="https://www.scpr.org/news/2017/12/19/79033/court-gives-detained-cambodians-temporary-reprieve/">Cambodians</a> in Southern California, and <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/christian-indonesians-jersey-fear-deportation-hostile-homeland-seek/story?id=52916931">Indonesians</a> in New Jersey.</p>
<p class="Body">Between Jan. 25 and Feb. 2, judges across the country temporarily blocked the deportations of the four latter cases. The Iraqis, whose case was the first to be filed in June 2017, have already received a nationwide stay. For varying reasons, all these communities previously enjoyed a reprieve from deportation, in some cases for decades. However, with the change in administration, a target was placed on their backs. As Thomas Homan, ICE’s acting director, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOrF4aFjKvg">declared</a> at a December press conference, “The president has made it clear in his executive orders: There’s no population off the table.”</p>
<p class="Default">However, in ruling after ruling, judges have taken issue with the government’s argument that these noncitizens — because of existing final orders of removal, some of which are decades old — have no meaningful opportunity to access the immigration court system to present their claims that they face grave harm if deported.</p>
<p class="Default">Moreover, they have rejected the government’s assertion that federal courts lack jurisdiction to rule on such matters. While ICE argues that our clients should confine themselves to prevailing upon existing immigration channels, the federal judges recognized that, without their intervention, individuals would likely be deported before they have a chance to do so.</p>
<p class="Body">In carrying out this campaign, ICE has shown little to no regard for the circumstances in immigrant’s countries of origin or the reasons they fear danger upon return. Instead, the agency has demonstrated it is willing to ignore our asylum laws and to repeatedly — and unsuccessfully — challenge federal courts’ jurisdictions in order to deport people as quickly as possible.</p>
<p class="Body">Under the Immigration and National Act, the government cannot deport a noncitizen to a country where their particular race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion puts their life or freedom at risk. The United States has also committed to adhere to the United Nation’s <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx">Convention Against Torture</a>, and thus cannot deport a noncitizen to a country “where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”</p>
<p class="Body">In the face of these legal barriers, ICE has focused its energy on trying to stop communities fighting deportation from receiving sufficient time to reopen their cases before immigration judges, who might find they qualify for protection under these laws. The agency’s hasty approach, in the face of such high stakes, has raised flags for the judiciary.</p>
<p class="Body">In the case of 1,400 Iraqis, many of whom fear that their religious affiliation and time in America will mark them as targets by ISIS, Judge Goldsmith of Michigan <a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/deportation-and-due-process/trump-administration-cant-deport-1400-iraqi">found</a>, “While cost and efficiency in administering the immigration system are not illegitimate governmental concerns, such interests pale to the point of evaporation when weighed against the potential lethal harm Petitioners may suffer.”</p>
<p class="Body">When weighing the future of Indonesian Christians in New Hampshire who fear religious persecution, Judge Saris of Massachusetts drew parallels to the 1939 U.S. decision to turn away Jewish refugees aboard the St. Louis, who were seeking safety. The ship returned to Europe, where 254 of the passengers were murdered in the Holocaust.</p>
<p class="Body">“After the Holocaust boats were turned away during World War II, the country said “Never again are we going to do that,” Judge Saris explained, “So I think we don’t want to put them on the ship back unless somebody has had a chance to look at whether there’s a really bad situation for them.”</p>
<p class="Body">We are currently defending two of our victories on behalf of the Indonesians in New Hampshire and the Iraqis in Michigan in the federal appeals courts for the First and Sixth Circuits, respectively. As more communities come under attack, we will continue to petition the courts to affirm immigrants’ rights in the face of an administration bent on discarding them. Thus far, federal judges have stepped up to the task.</p>Speak Freely<a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/ice-and-border-patrol-abuses/ice-keeps-challenging-federal-courts-authority">67302</a>Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:00 -0500American Civil Liberties UnionI Sentenced a Teen to Die in Prison. I Regret It. https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/sentencing/i-sentenced-teen-die-prison-i-regret-it
A retired judge sentenced a teenager to 241 years in prison. She now believes her sentence was unconstitutional.
<p><em>This piece originally appeared at <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-sentenced-a-teen-to-die-in-prison-i-regret-it/2018/02/13/20e731ba-103a-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.f1824d93cdfc" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a>. </em></p>
<p>“You will die in the Department of Corrections.” Those are the words I spoke as a trial judge in 1997 when I sentenced Bobby Bostic to a total of 241 years in prison for his role in two armed robberies he committed when he was just 16 years old.</p>
<p>Bostic and an 18-year-old friend <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/u-s-supreme-court-could-hear-case-of-st-louis/article_85a45e2f-4236-5436-b440-c759ff33831c.html">robbed a group of six people</a> who were delivering Christmas presents to a needy family in St. Louis. Two shots were fired. A bullet grazed one person, but no one was seriously injured. The two then abducted and robbed another woman — who said she was groped by Bostic’s accomplice before the two released her. They used the money they stole from her to buy marijuana. Despite overwhelming evidence against him, Bostic chose to go to trial. He was found guilty.</p>
<p>Bostic had written me a letter trying to explain his actions, but despite this, he had not, in my view, demonstrated sufficient remorse.</p>
<p>I told him: “You are the biggest fool who has ever stood in front of this court. . . . You made your choice. You’re gonna have to live with your choice, and you’re gonna die with your choice. . . . Your mandatory date to go in front of the parole board will be the year 2201. Nobody in this room is going to be alive in the year 2201.”</p>
<p><em>To keep reading this piece at The Washington Post, click <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-sentenced-a-teen-to-die-in-prison-i-regret-it/2018/02/13/20e731ba-103a-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.f1824d93cdfc" target="_blank">here</a>.</em></p>Speak Freely<a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/sentencing/i-sentenced-teen-die-prison-i-regret-it">67308</a>Tue, 13 Feb 2018 16:45 -0500American Civil Liberties UnionYour Rights in the Border Zonehttps://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention/your-rights-border-zone
As Customs and Border Protection becomes increasingly aggressive, knowing your rights is crucial.
<p>On Jan. 19, two Border Patrol agents <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/01/23/video-shows-border-patrol-officers-asking-greyhound-passengers-for-ids-taking-woman-into-custody/?utm_term=.ed7f862730a6">boarded</a> a Greyhound bus at a Fort Lauderdale station and proceeded to question passengers row by row. The bus, traveling from Orlando to Miami, had not crossed any international borders. Despite its domestic route, the agents interrogated passengers, ultimately detaining a Jamaican national who, Border Patrol claims, had overstayed her tourist visa. This story is not an isolated occurrence, and the practice is hardly new. However, a recent uptick in this type of immigration operation — from <a href="http://www.newyorkupstate.com/syracuse/2018/02/video_goes_viral_after_boarder_patrol_conducts_checks_on_amtrack_train_in_syracu.html">New York</a> to Florida — has caused fear among travelers and immigrant communities. It has also raised important questions about the scope of immigration officials’ authority and the rights one has in these encounters.</p>
<h4>Are immigration officials allowed to stop people in places wholly inside the U.S.?</h4>
<p>U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the federal agency tasked with patrolling the U.S. border and areas that function like a border, claims a territorial reach much larger than you might imagine. A federal law says that, without a warrant, CBP can board vehicles and vessels and search for people without immigration documentation “within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States.” These “external boundaries” include international land borders but also the entire U.S. coastline.</p>
<h4><strong>What is a “reasonable distance”?</strong></h4>
<p class="node-type-blog">The federal government defines a “reasonable distance” as 100 air miles from any external boundary of the U.S. So, combining this federal regulation and the federal law regarding warrantless vehicle searches, CBP claims authority to board a bus or train without a warrant anywhere within this 100-mile zone. Two-thirds of the U.S. population, or about 200 million people, reside within this expanded border region, according to the 2010 census. Most of the 10 largest cities in the U.S., such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, fall in this region. Some states, like Florida, lie entirely within this border band so their entire populations are impacted.</p>
<h4>Are there limitations to immigration officials’ power?<strong> </strong>
</h4>
<p>The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against arbitrary searches and seizures of people and their property, even in this expanded border area. Furthermore, as a general matter, these agents’ jurisdiction extends only to immigration violations and federal crimes. And, depending on where you are in this area and how long an agent detains you, agents must have varying levels of suspicion to hold you.</p>
<p>We will examine specific scenarios where one might encounter CBP in more depth, but here are your key rights. These apply to every situation, outside of customs and ports of entry.</p>
<ul>
<li>
<strong>You have the right to remain silent or tell the agent that you’ll only answer questions in the presence of an attorney, no matter your citizenship or immigration status. </strong>You do not have to answer questions about your immigration status. You may simply say that you do not wish to answer those questions. If you choose to remain silent, the agent will likely ask you questions for longer, but your silence alone is not enough to support probable cause or reasonable suspicion to arrest, detain, or search you or your belongings.<br>A limited exception does exist: for people who do have permission to be in the U.S. for a specific reason and for, usually, a limited amount of time (a “nonimmigrant” on a visa, for example), the law does require you to provide information about your immigration status if asked. While you can still choose to remain silent or decline a request to produce your documents, people in this category should be aware that they could face arrest consequences. If you want to know whether you fall into this category, you should consult an attorney.</li>
<li>
<strong>Generally, an immigration officer cannot detain you without “reasonable suspicion.” </strong>Reasonable suspicion is less robust than probable cause, but it is certainly not just a hunch or gut feeling. An agent must have specific facts about you that make it reasonable to believe you are committing or committed, a violation of immigration law or federal law.<br>If an agent detains you, you can ask for their basis for reasonable suspicion, and they should tell you.</li>
<li>
<strong>An immigration officer also cannot search you or your belongings without either “probable caus</strong>e<strong>” or your consent.</strong> If an agent asks you if they can search your belongings, you have the right to say no.</li>
<li>
<strong>An immigration officer cannot arrest you without “probable cause.”</strong><br>That means the agent must have facts about you that make it probable that you are committing, or committed, a violation of immigration law or federal law.</li>
<li><strong>Your silence alone meets neither of these standards. Nor does your race or ethnicity alone suffice for either probable cause or reasonable suspicion.</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>Other important factors to keep in mind:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<strong>If an agent asks you for documents, what you need to provide differs depending on your immigration status.</strong> U.S. citizens do not have to carry proof of citizenship on their person if they are in the United States. If you have valid immigration documents and are over the age of 18, the law does require you to carry those documents on you. If you are asked by an immigration agent to produce them, it is advisable to show the documents to the agent or you risk being arrested. If you are an immigrant without documents, you can decline the officer’s request. An agent may likely ask you more questions if you decline a request. No matter what category you fall into, never provide false documents to immigration officials.</li>
<li>
<strong>People who have entered the U.S. without inspection by an immigration official may be subject to expedited removal from the U.S.</strong> Expedited removal is a summary deportation that bypasses an immigration judge. The federal government says that it will only attempt to apply expedited removal to individuals who have entered the United States without inspection in the last 14 days, have been encountered by an immigration officer within 100 miles of the border, and meet certain other criteria. If you are told that you are subject to expedited removal but do not fall within that category, you should let the agents know. Also, if you fear persecution if returned to your country of origin, you should immediately inform the agents of your fear.</li>
</ul>
<h2>How Does This Work in Real Life?</h2>
<h4>CBP on Buses and Trains</h4>
<p>As part of its immigration enforcement efforts, CBP boards buses and trains in the 100-mile border region either at the station or while the bus is on its journey. More than one officer usually boards the bus, and they will ask passengers questions about their immigration status, ask passengers to show them immigration documents, or both. These questions should be brief and related to verifying one’s lawful presence in the U.S. Although these situations are scary, and it may seem that CBP agents are giving you an order when they ask you questions, you are not required to answer and can simply say you do not wish to do so. As always, you have the right to remain silent.</p>
<p>Refusing to answer CBP’s questions may result in the agent persisting with questioning. If this occurs, you should ask if you are being detained. Another way to ask this is to say, “am I free to leave?” If the agent wishes to actually detain you — in other words, you are not free to leave — the agent needs at least reasonable suspicion that you committed an immigration violation to do so. Also, if an agent begins to question you about nonimmigration matters, say to ask about drug smuggling, or if they haul you off the bus, they need at least reasonable suspicion that you committed an offense in order to briefly detain you while they investigate. You can ask an agent for their basis for detaining you, and they should tell you.</p>
<p>The longer CBP detains you the more suspicion they need — eventually they will need probable cause once the detention goes from brief to prolonged. If the agent arrests you or searches the interior of your belongings, they need probable cause that you committed an offense. You can ask the agent to tell you their basis for probable cause, and they should be able to articulate their suspicion.</p>
<h4>CBP at Immigration Checkpoints</h4>
<p>CBP operates immigration checkpoints along the interior of the United States at both major roads — permanent checkpoints — and secondary roads — “tactical checkpoints”— as part of its enforcement strategy. Depending on the checkpoint, there may be cameras installed throughout and leading up to the checkpoint and drug-sniffing dogs stationed with the agents. At these checkpoints, every motorist is stopped and asked about their immigration status. Agents do not need any suspicion to stop you and ask you questions at a lawful checkpoint, but their questions should be brief and related to verifying immigration status. They can also visually inspect your vehicle. Some motorists will be sent to secondary inspection areas at the checkpoint for further questioning. This should be done only to ask limited and routine questions about immigration status that cannot be asked of every motorist in heavy traffic. If you find yourself at an immigration checkpoint while you are driving, never flee from it — it’s a felony.</p>
<p>As before, when you are at a checkpoint, you can remain silent, inform the agent that you decline to answer their questions or tell the agent you will only answer questions in the presence of an attorney. Refusing to answer the agent’s question will likely result in being further detained for questioning, being referred to secondary inspection, or both. If an agent extends the stop to ask questions unrelated to immigration enforcement or extends the stop for a prolonged period to ask about immigration status, the agent needs at least reasonable suspicion that you committed an immigration offense or violated federal law for their actions to be lawful. If you are held at the checkpoint for more than brief questioning, you can ask the agent if you are free to leave. If they say no, they need reasonable suspicion to continue holding you. You can ask an agent for their basis for reasonable suspicion, and they should tell you. If an agent arrests you, detains you for a protracted period or searches your belongings or the spaces of your vehicle that are not in plain view of the officer, the agent needs probable cause that you committed an immigration offense or that you violated federal law. You can ask the agent to tell you their basis for probable cause. They should inform you.</p>
<h4>CBP Roving Patrols</h4>
<p>CBP conducts yet another interior enforcement activity: roving patrols. During these patrols, CBP drives around the interior of the U.S. pulling motorists over. For these operations, the Supreme Court requires CBP to have reasonable suspicion that the driver or passengers in the car they pulled over committed an immigration violation or a federal crime. If they do pull you over, an agent’s questions should be limited to the suspicion they had for pulling you over and the agents should not prolong the stop for questioning unrelated to the purpose of the stop. Any arrest or prolonged stop requires probable cause. You may ask the agent their basis for probable cause, and they should tell you. In this situation, both the driver and any passengers have the right to remain silent and not answer questions about their immigration status.</p>
<p>Encounters with CBP, or any law enforcement agent, can be intimidating and scary. It is always best to stay calm and be courteous when dealing with immigration officials. If you believe your rights have been violated, you should contact an attorney.</p>Speak Freely<a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention/your-rights-border-zone">67300</a>Tue, 13 Feb 2018 14:30 -0500American Civil Liberties UnionOhio’s Chief Justice Stands Up to Jeff Sessions in Support of Low-Income Peoplehttps://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/ohios-chief-justice-stands-jeff-sessions-support-low-income-people
Supreme court justice in Ohio reminds judges everywhere that criminalizing poverty is unconstitutional.
<p>In late December, Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded crucial guidance that advised courts not to unfairly punish people simply for being poor. While Sessions furthers the criminalization of poverty, Ohio’s chief justice is reminding her judges that the people who pass through their courtrooms are not ATMs.</p>
<p>On January 29, Maureen O’Connor <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2018/01/ohio_supreme_court_chief_justi_2.html">sent a letter</a> to all Ohio trial judges to ensure they were aware that the law has not changed and “court cases are not business transactions.” Her thoughtful letter is a stark contrast to Jeff Sessions’ abrupt decision to rescind a guidance that had helped judges and court administrators around the country reform court practices to guard against abuses like debtors’ prisons — the jailing of poor people who cannot afford to pay court fines and fees.</p>
<p>O’Connor made clear that despite the department’s decision, the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land and that the rights enshrined in that document are unchanged. She also reminded judges of their obligation to serve the public and promote fairness and equal treatment of rich and poor:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“We have a special responsibility to act in a manner that bolsters public trust and confidence in the fair administration of justice for everyone. Practices that penalize the poor simply because of their economic state; that impose unreasonable fines, fees, or bail … upon on our citizens to raise money or cave to local funding pressure; or that create barriers to access to justice are simply wrong. No rescission of guidance by the [DOJ] changes that.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As co-chair of the National Task Force on Fines, Fees, and Bail Practices, O’Connor has long been a leader in Ohio and the nation on reforming practices that criminalize poverty. With the stroke of a pen, O’Connor showed leadership at a time when the country needs it. Her letter brings attention to the devastating impact of excessive court fines and fees and bail practices on the lives of low-income people and the justice system’s obligation to protect people’s rights, even when they are poor.</p>
<p>In Ohio, particularly, O’Connor’s letter is crucial.</p>
<p>During the ACLU of Ohio’s 2013 investigation into debtors’ prison practices across the state, we met countless people who were tethered to the criminal justice system simply because they were too poor to pay off court fines and fees. We issued <a href="http://www.acluohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TheOutskirtsOfHope2013_04.pdf">a report</a> that told the story of countless more people who were given unjustly high court fines and fees that they could not afford to pay and rigid payment plans that kept them trapped in the grips of poverty.</p>
<p>One young couple owed thousands of dollars in fines and fees from low-level convictions, such as disorderly conduct and drinking underage. Each month, the couple was forced to make the impossible choice of whose fines they would continue to pay so one of them could stay at home with their infant while the other would spend another 10 days in jail for fines that they simply could not afford to pay. Our report also told the story of a man who could not afford to pay fines because he was recently laid off. With no health insurance and mounting medical debt, he simply could not pay his court fines.</p>
<p align="left" class="Document">After hearing these stories, many Ohio judges admitted that they were unaware that existing laws, including Ohio statutes and the U.S. Constitution, limit the ways in which court fines and fees can be imposed and collected. Chief Justice O’Connor took action to make sure that state judges would no longer be confused. She issued a detailed <a href="https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/publications/jcs/finescourtcosts.pdf">bench card</a> outlining the rules for collecting fines and fees, ensured that judges throughout Ohio were trained on those rules, and held accountable judges who continued to violate the law by jailing people for nonpayment without giving them a hearing on their ability to pay.</p>
<p>The stark reality is that in many courts across the country, the size of your bank account determines the type of justice you receive. But Chief Justice O’Connor’s actions show that judges can chart a path toward fairness and restore trust in the justice system. <a href="https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/sentencing/ending-modern-day-debtors-prisons?redirect=feature/ending-modern-day-debtors-prisons">ACLU affiliates</a> in Mississippi, Washington, New Hampshire, and Michigan, are continuing this work – implementing reforms, leading community conversations, and making progress.</p>
<p>The abdication of leadership by the Department of Justice in the fight against debtors’ prisons and other injustices stemming from abusive court fines and fees has opened a path to leadership for others. Chief Justice O’Connor took the first step forward. Other state chief justices should follow suit and remind judges in their states that the U.S. Constitution remains the law of the land, regardless of what Jeff Sessions may think or do.</p>Speak Freely<a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/ohios-chief-justice-stands-jeff-sessions-support-low-income-people">67297</a>Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:30 -0500American Civil Liberties UnionHouse Members Are Pushing a Bill That Will Roll Back the Rights of People With Disabilities https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/house-members-are-pushing-bill-will-roll-back-rights-people-disabilities
The &quot;ADA Education and Reform Act&quot; neither reforms nor educates.
<p>The entrance to the post office in a small town was up a flight of 20 steps. When told he needed to make the post office accessible to wheelchair users, the postmaster was befuddled. “I’ve been here for thirty-five years and in all that time I’ve yet to see a single customer come in here in a wheelchair,” he said, according to Joe Shapiro in his 1994 book, “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/No-Pity-Disabilities-Forging-Movement/dp/0812924126?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&amp;tag=duckduckgo-d-20&amp;linkCode=xm2&amp;camp=2025&amp;creative=165953&amp;creativeASIN=0812924126">No Pity</a>.”</p>
<p>It would seem the postmaster didn’t see the irony in that response. But it’s because of that lack of awareness from business owners and government workers that Congress in 1990 passed the <a href="https://www.ada.gov/pubs/ada.htm">Americans with Disabilities Act</a> (ADA), which promoted the integration, acceptance, and everyday rights of people with disabilities. But this week, the House of Representatives could undermine a key tenet of that landmark civil rights law.</p>
<p>Under Title III of the ADA, private businesses must ensure new buildings are accessible and remove barriers in older buildings where it is “readily achievable”—a standard that considers the cost of the change and the resources of the business. For example, a major hotel chain might need to spend several thousand dollars to make a few of their rooms accessible, but a small business might only be expected to spend a few hundred dollars to grind down a three inch lip into a doorway, or to put a ramp up two stairs. Now a group of businesses led by the owners of large shopping malls have persuaded more than 100 representatives to introduce <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/620?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22HR+620%22%5D%7D&amp;r=1">H.R. 620</a>, the so-called “ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017.” This legislation would require people with disabilities who encounter access barriers at a business or facility to become legal experts on the code, to provide “notice” to the business of what code they are violating, and to wait six months or longer. And this isn’t even for the business to actually fix the problem—just for the business to make “substantial progress” towards accessibility.</p>
<p>Only after all these steps and months of waiting, would H.R. 620 authorize filing a lawsuit. Navigating such a process would be both complicated and time-consuming, which, of course, is the point of the bill.</p>
<p>Proponents of H.R. 620 claim that the bill will help dampen what they see as an increase in individuals bringing harassing or unjustified access lawsuits against small businesses. This is an absurd argument that functions as a strawman to attack the rights of the disability community. ADA lawsuits are already one of the lowest categories of lawsuits filed against businesses. The Center for American Progress <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/disability/news/2017/09/22/439464/quiet-attack-ada-making-way-congress/">has reported</a> that the small uptick in ADA litigation can be attributed to “just <a href="http://www.adatitleiii.com/tag/ada-education-and-reform-act/">12 individual attorneys</a> and a single disability law firm” which filed more than 100 cases each.<br><img alt="Data Table of Caseload of Accessibility Complaint Statistics" width="580" class="advo-image-height-filtered-text media-element file-wysiwyg" src="https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/styles/content_area_full_width/public/wysiwyg/ada_litigation_graph.jpg?itok=5UDnI_mr"></p>
<p>On a practical level, the legislation would effectively exempt businesses from compliance with Title III of the ADA, but it would do nothing to resolve the problem of individuals who are viewed as bringing harassing or unjustified access lawsuits against small businesses. Instead, H.R. 620 erodes the balancing of interests in the ADA by removing incentives for businesses to comply with the law and by placing excessive burdens on individuals with disabilities.</p>
<p>As Amy Robertson of the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center explains, defense firms fight even the most obvious access violations. “When presented with tape-measure evidence of noncompliance,” Robertson <a href="https://creeclaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Corbett-et-al.-Amicus-Brief-iso-Appellees.pdf">has written</a>, “businesses challenge standing, limit or withhold discovery, move to compel and for protective orders, resist class certification, move to stay the litigation, seek summary judgment, and only then—after years of litigation and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees on both sides—agree to comply.”</p>
<p>And in reality, there’s no real incentive to dedicate one’s life to hassling businesses with lawsuits. There are no damages available under the ADA—only attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief, which removes the specific barrier they’re contesting. Litigation is time-consuming, attorneys are expensive, and people with disabilities are too busy leading their lives to file endless lawsuits.</p>
<p>People with disabilities face barriers everyday: inaccessible restrooms, inaccessible medical equipment, inaccessible parking lots, inaccessible entrances, and inaccessible tables at restaurants. But instead of fixing those problems, H.R. 620 would force people who have historically faced the most marginalization and discrimination in society to become legal code experts and navigate a byzantine bureaucratic process before being able to assert their rights under the ADA. The specifics of this bill might look different in the final version, but no cosmetic modifications can change the fact that it’s predicated on a faulty premise. As a matter of law and justice, businesses owe it to people with disabilities to proactively ensure access—not the other way around.</p>
<p>If the House wants to rectify problems in access litigation, it should be assessing penalties against noncompliant businesses—not making it harder for people with disabilities to simply assert our right to be part of society.</p>Speak Freely<a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/house-members-are-pushing-bill-will-roll-back-rights-people-disabilities">67295</a>Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:45 -0500American Civil Liberties Union9 Major Insurance Companies Are Profiting the Most Off the Broken Bail Systemhttps://www.aclu.org/blog/mass-incarceration/smart-justice/9-major-insurance-companies-are-profiting-most-broken-bail
Accredited Surety is one bail shark among many who exploits poor Americans trying to make bail.
<p>Chances are you’ve never heard of Bermuda-based insurance investment conglomerate Randall &amp; Quilter and its wholly owned Florida-based company Accredited Surety.</p>
<p>Accredited is one of <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/america-is-waking-up-to-the-injustice-of-cash-bail/">nine</a> major insurance companies that underwrite most of the money-bail businesses in the U.S. Companies like Accredited play a significant role in propping up the two-tiered American justice system that sells liberty to people who can afford it, plunges people into debt who struggle to pay it back, and deprives many others the opportunity to return to their lives, families, and jobs while the court determines their guilt or innocence.</p>
<p>And because of its unapologetic gluttony, Accredited is our bail shark of the month.</p>
<p>Like a proud parent, R&amp;Q was “pleased to announce” its acquisition of Accredited in 2014. In a <a href="http://www.rqih.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Accredited-FINAL-040714-2.pdf">press release</a>, R&amp;Q Chairman and CEO Ken Randall said, “We are delighted to have reached agreement with Accredited. There is an excellent cultural fit and this represents an important milestone in … securing stable income streams from associated fee and distribution income.”</p>
<p>Clearly, that culture is profit.</p>
<p>On its <a href="http://www.accredited-inc.com/our-services/bail/">website</a>, Accredited makes clear that it is not just peripherally involved in the U.S. bail business. Rather it promises to “provide Accredited agents with the support they need to successfully operate a bail agency in today’s market.” The company goes so far as to make explicit that this support extends to protecting the status quo by fighting bail reform.</p>
<p>In its own words, “Accredited has established a long track record of initiating and supporting legislative efforts to improve and preserve the bail industry.” That’s a modest way to describe its attempts to influence the legislature in Florida and around the country, investing tens of thousands of <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000031284&amp;year=2009">dollars</a> in lobbying along the way.</p>
<p>And it’s no wonder they’re invested in protecting the status quo. In a<a href="https://www.floir.com/siteDocuments/AccreditedSuretyCasualty12312010.pdf"> report</a> to regulators, Accredited boasted they’ve never incurred a loss from their investments in the bail industry. It’s easy money because the system is rigged in their favor and against our communities.</p>
<p>Accredited and companies like it prop up an arcane system, one that existed long before the U.S. Constitution and one that does not live up to its promises of liberty, equal treatment under the law, innocence until proven guilty, and the right to a fair and speedy trial to safeguard these protections. Once intended to ensure that people appeared in court to face and defend themselves against an accusation, the centuries-old money bail system has been thoroughly perverted.</p>
<p>Money bail in the U.S. now generates major profits for bail bond companies backed by Accredited and its ilk. But it’s also responsible for the widespread incarceration of people whose only pretrial pathway to going home to their families and jobs is to sign a contract backed by an insurance company like Accredited. Signing that contract means paying a fee that they will never get back, even if the charges are dropped a day after the contract is signed.</p>
<p><a class="more" href="https://action.aclu.org/secure/end-forprofit-bail" target="_blank">Stop Bail Profiteer Companies</a></p>
<p>Globally, only two countries allow for-profit bail bond companies: the Philippines and the U.S. Most nations, it seems, have recognized that they shouldn’t allow private enterprise to play a major gatekeeping role in our justice system — like determining who does and doesn’t remain in jail while presumed innocent — and to make its decisions based on people’s wealth and the company’s profits.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that when multinational insurance investor R&amp;Q acquired Accredited, the company absorbed one of the major players in a bail bond system that profits off our nation’s most vulnerable citizens, draining resources out of communities most impacted by mass incarceration. And Accredited plans to keep growing its “core business” unless we continue to mobilize to stop it.</p>
<p>We’ve already started to reform bail practices in <a href="https://www.laaclu.org/en/news/new-orleans-passes-municipal-bail-reform">cities</a> and <a href="https://www.aclu-nj.org/theissues/criminaljustice/pretrial-justice-what-it-looks-nj/lessons-nation-new-jerseys-cash-bail-overhaul-short-documentary/">states</a> across the country. But in 2018, we’re doubling down on this strategy. In some 37 states — and counting — the ACLU will try to put the for-profit bail industry out of business for good.</p>Speak Freely<a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/mass-incarceration/smart-justice/9-major-insurance-companies-are-profiting-most-broken-bail">67292</a>Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:45 -0500American Civil Liberties Union